On an application for a Declaration that another insurer share in the costs of the defence of an underlying action, there was nothing in the documentation to specifically identify the contested policy as either a claims-made policy or an occurrence policy. Because more than one reasonable interpretation of the insuring agreement was open, the interpretation favouring the Insured by recognizing a duty to defend resulted and the Declaration was granted.

01. June 2006 0
Lanark Mutual Insurance Co. v. Economical Mutual Insurance Co., [2006] O.J. No. 2173, Ontario Superior Court of Justice

When an insured receives clear and unambiguous notice that he or she has been denied disability insurance benefits, the one-year limitation period contained in the policy is triggered. The Insurer is not required to give notice to the Insured that the limitation period has commenced, and the limitation period is not postponed by an appeal of the Insurer’s decision by the Insured.

Pekarek v. Manufacturers Life Insurance Co., [2006] B.C.J. No. 1142, British Columbia Court of Appeal

The Estate of the Deceased Insured was awarded the cost of medical expenses paid following treatment at a hospital pursuant to a travel insurance policy issued by the Defendant. The condition precedent that the Insured was in good health applied despite the fact she had an alcohol abuse problem and had overdosed on alcohol and Dilaudid the day before signing the Declaration. The exclusion clause did not apply because there was no evidence her alcohol abuse problem affected her at the time of, or contributed to, the loss.

Oimet Estate v. Co-operators Life Insurance Co., [2006] B.C.J. No. 1221, British Columbia Supreme Court